Data courtesy of CFBStats.com and The Wiz.

The rule was implemented to shorten games and satisfy two constituencies:

1)Broadcasters looking for more manageable game slots
2)Flighty fans who complained about "four hour games"

I guess the model was the NFL with its clockwork-like three hour games, but this change is a stinker.  College football is not like the NFL and the more we pattern ourselves after the NFL the more we're going to lose.

The obvious complaints are that this rule has cut down on scoring and possessions.  Quite relevant, disturbing and true.  But it's also led to cynical shenanigans like Wisconsin's little onside-kick-gate thing earlier this year.

Beyond all that, I'm frustrated with what it's done to game play.  The soul of college football is its tradition and a more wide open style of play.  But big school coaches are puckering up.  Texas' Mack Brown complained that the new rules completely changed how he managed the second half of the Ohio State game this year and squashed any chance at a comeback.  Pete Carroll was uncharacteristically mopey about the loss of possessions towards the end of the year.  And you can just see it in the way games are played if you watch enough college football.  It's not good.

I remember reading a month or so back that the rules committee folks would take a look at modifications to this idiotic change to the game.  They should be looking to eliminate it altogether.  They messed up, time to clean it up.

The real culprit that we don't want to talk about here is advertisers.  Their influence was most strongly felt in the bowl games and naturally, the average game time soared 21 minutes.

Last week [CFBStats.com] provided data on the commercial-heavy postseason, with games averaging a whopping 3:27:26, nearly 21 minutes longer than the average regular-season game through 13 regular-season weeks. The new set of numbers below factor in postseason play, which includes conference championship games and bowl games, along with the limited number of regular-season games that were played in Week 14 (USC-UCLA comes to mind). Despite the fact only 49 games were added, the average time of a game increased by 61 seconds!

Call me crazy but this looks like a situation where we've created a rule that negatively affects game play at a cost of just a few extra minutes a game.  Is it really worth it?  I'm sure the networks are happy but there's a cost here.  I'm not happy.  The game isn't as fun when the second half sees the best teams playing keepaway instead of football.  This is going to drive people (and their eyeball$) away from the game over time.

Some middle ground has to be found with advertisers.  Whether it means World Cup/NBA styled advertisements at the edge of the playing field or charging premium rates for fewer advertising slots, etc. just do it.  They're the ones who made bowl games so much longer than regular season games.  That's fine, I like a longer game (what better thing to do than watch football, right?) but just be honest with us that there's a hypocritical bending of the rules going on.  I'm not naive to the business side of the game here, but in trying to get cute here a dramatic change happened to the game without a dramatic reduction in game length.

Why not simply give us our game back?  I hear happy people spend more money and view the advertisers more positively than those agitated by a game ruined by poorly thought out rule changes.  I'm not reaching for my Bud during the end of a bad game, I'm looking to pull my hair out.  Save my hair, put the Bud back in my hand, protect the game and keep everyone happy.